Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Prime
Nifty fifty or a trusty thirty-five?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JDFlood" data-source="post: 120489" data-attributes="member: 11653"><p>Given what you have said, I think the 35mm. The reason, depth of field... It is significantly better. Unless you are shooting people (head shots). The 35mm as a normal lens for street photography, architecture, and low light is better... Low light because you get a way better depth of field when it is wide open. I do landscapes, street, architecture, and low light... I am ashamed to realize how long it took me to figure out to switch from 50mm to 35mm. Also, last decade I decided zooms were finally good enough to use... But have gone back to primes except for travel because there is a real pitfall in making you lazy. The rule for me is pick the focal length for the desired depth of field, and it becomes so easy to zoom instead of walking to frame correctly I screw up the photos much of the time ( I don't do sports). Oh ya, and my neck was killing me from carrying around heavy zooms. So I think you are on the right path and asking the right questions. JD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JDFlood, post: 120489, member: 11653"] Given what you have said, I think the 35mm. The reason, depth of field... It is significantly better. Unless you are shooting people (head shots). The 35mm as a normal lens for street photography, architecture, and low light is better... Low light because you get a way better depth of field when it is wide open. I do landscapes, street, architecture, and low light... I am ashamed to realize how long it took me to figure out to switch from 50mm to 35mm. Also, last decade I decided zooms were finally good enough to use... But have gone back to primes except for travel because there is a real pitfall in making you lazy. The rule for me is pick the focal length for the desired depth of field, and it becomes so easy to zoom instead of walking to frame correctly I screw up the photos much of the time ( I don't do sports). Oh ya, and my neck was killing me from carrying around heavy zooms. So I think you are on the right path and asking the right questions. JD [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Prime
Nifty fifty or a trusty thirty-five?
Top